DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 1.1 This Report ...............................................................................................................................3 1.2 Our Goal ..................................................................................................................................4 Chapter 2. Single-Winner Systems ......................................................................................................5 2.1 Plurality – The American Status Quo .........................................................................................6 2.2 Delayed Runoff ........................................................................................................................8 2.3 Rating Election Methods ......................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Range Voting ............................................................................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Majority Judgment Voting ......................................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Approval Voting ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Benefits and Criticisms of Rating Systems ................................................................................ 12 2.4 Ranking Election Systems ....................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1 How It Works: Using Ranked Choice Voting .............................................................................. 15 2.4.2 Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting ............................................................................................. 16 2.4.3 Criticisms of Ranked Choice Voting ........................................................................................... 17 2.4.4 Cost Considerations ................................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Evaluating Single-Winner Voting Methods on Objective Criteria .............................................. 19 Chapter 3. Multi-Winner Systems ..................................................................................................... 21 3.1 Types of Multi-Member Districts ............................................................................................. 21 3.2 Bloc Multi-Member Districts ................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Bloc Multi-Member Districts in Oregon .................................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Benefits and Criticisms of Bloc Voting ....................................................................................... 24 3.3 Semi-Proportional Systems ..................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1 Cumulative Voting ..................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.3 Limited Voting ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.4 Proportional Representation Systems ..................................................................................... 26 3.4.1 List Voting .................................................................................................................................. 27 3.4.2 Mixed-Member Proportional .................................................................................................... 29 3.4.3 The Single Transferable Vote, aka Ranked-Choice Voting ........................................................ 30 3.4.4 Design Considerations for Proportional Representation Systems ............................................ 32 3.4.5 Benefits of Proportional Representation .................................................................................. 33 3.4.6 Criticisms of Proportional Representation ................................................................................ 35 3.5 Summary of Multi-WInner Voting Methods ............................................................................. 36 Chapter 4. Political Parties and Oregon Reforms ............................................................................... 38 4.1 Fusion Voting ......................................................................................................................... 38 4.2 Primary Reforms .................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.1 Arguments in Favor of Top-Two ................................................................................................ 40 4.2.2 Arguments Against Top-Two ..................................................................................................... 41 4.2.3 Equivocal Arguments for Top-Two ............................................................................................ 42 Chapter 5. Administration of Alternate Methods .............................................................................. 43 1 5.1 Equipment Limitations............................................................................................................ 43 5.2 Recounts ................................................................................................................................ 43 5.3 Voter Education ..................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter 6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix 1. LWVOR 2009 Election Methods Position ........................................................................ 46 Appendix 2. Evaluation of Single-Winner Voting Methods ................................................................. 47 A2.1 Limitations of Collective Decision-Making ............................................................................. 48 A2.1.1 The Arrow Impossibility Theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem ........................ 48 A2.2 Evaluating and Comparing Imperfect Systems ....................................................................... 49 A2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................... 49 A2.2.2 Evaluating Methods in Computer Simulations ....................................................................... 35 A2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix 3. Additional Ranked Choice Methods ............................................................................... 40 A3.1 Borda Count ......................................................................................................................... 40 A3.2 Condorcet Method ............................................................................................................... 40 Appendix 4. Hypothetical Examples of Proportional Representation ................................................. 42 A4.1 Mixed-Member Proportional ................................................................................................ 42 A4.2 Single-Transferable Vote ...................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 5. Positions from Other Leagues ........................................................................................ 45 A5.1 League of Women Voters State Positions .............................................................................. 45 A5.2 Local League: Position Examples ........................................................................................... 49 Appendix 6. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 51 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION How shall we choose our representatives? From ancient civilizations to the far, far future this basic question of how to combine each individual’s nuanced preferences and opinions into a single aggregate choice is a procedural concern affecting every aspect of our lives. Our current winner-take-all, plurality system, while easy to understand and administer, faces growing competition from other systems, such as those used in many other countries to elect officials who are more representative of their constituencies. In 2008, the League of Women Voters of Oregon (LWVOR) conducted a comprehensive review of election methods;1 this update looks only at election methods currently in use and likely to be considered for adoption in Oregon. In taking this approach, we hope to achieve a consensus position to allow us to advocate for or against proposed changes in election methods at the state, regional, and local level in Oregon. The League, as a trusted source of information, should be able to advise on issues that are basic to our democracy. In 2014, for lack of a position, LWVOR was unable to support or oppose Measure 90 which advocated for a single primary ballot listing all candidates, from which
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Generalization of the Minisum and Minimax Voting Methods
    A Generalization of the Minisum and Minimax Voting Methods Shankar N. Sivarajan Undergraduate, Department of Physics Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560 012, India [email protected] Faculty Advisor: Prof. Y. Narahari Deparment of Computer Science and Automation Revised Version: December 4, 2017 Abstract In this paper, we propose a family of approval voting-schemes for electing committees based on the preferences of voters. In our schemes, we calcu- late the vector of distances of the possible committees from each of the ballots and, for a given p-norm, choose the one that minimizes the magni- tude of the distance vector under that norm. The minisum and minimax methods suggested by previous authors and analyzed extensively in the literature naturally appear as special cases corresponding to p = 1 and p = 1; respectively. Supported by examples, we suggest that using a small value of p; such as 2 or 3, provides a good compromise between the minisum and minimax voting methods with regard to the weightage given to approvals and disapprovals. For large but finite p; our method reduces to finding the committee that covers the maximum number of voters, and this is far superior to the minimax method which is prone to ties. We also discuss extensions of our methods to ternary voting. 1 Introduction In this paper, we consider the problem of selecting a committee of k members out of n candidates based on preferences expressed by m voters. The most common way of conducting this election is to allow each voter to select his favorite candidate and vote for him/her, and we select the k candidates with the most number of votes.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction 2 Condorcet and Borda Tallies
    1 Introduction General introduction goes here. 2 Condorcet and Borda Tallies 2.1 Definitions We are primarily interested in comparing the behaviors of two information aggregation methods, namely the Condorcet and Borda tallies. This interest is motivated by both historical and practical concerns: the relative merits of the two methods have been argued since the 18th century, and, although variations on the Borda tally are much more common in practice, there is a significant body of theoretical evidence that the Condorcet tally is in many cases superior. To begin, we provide formal definitions of both of these methods, and of a generalized information aggregation problem. An information aggregation problem, often referred to simply as a voting problem, is a problem which involves taking information from a number of disparate sources, and using this information to produce a single output. Problems of this type arise in numerous domains. In political science, they are common, occurring whenever voters cast votes which are used to decide 1 the outcome of some issue. Although less directly, they also occur in fields as diverse as control theory and cognitive science. Wherever there is a system which must coalesce information from its subsystems, there is potentially the need to balance conflicting information about a single topic. In any such circumstance, if there is not reason to trust any single source more than the others, the problem can be phrased as one of information aggregation. 2.1.1 Information Aggregation Problems To facilitate the formalization of these problems, we only consider cases in which a finite number of information sources (which shall henceforth be re- ferred to as voters) provide information regarding some contested issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Voting
    Stable Voting Wesley H. Hollidayy and Eric Pacuitz y University of California, Berkeley ([email protected]) z University of Maryland ([email protected]) September 12, 2021 Abstract In this paper, we propose a new single-winner voting system using ranked ballots: Stable Voting. The motivating principle of Stable Voting is that if a candidate A would win without another candidate B in the election, and A beats B in a head-to-head majority comparison, then A should still win in the election with B included (unless there is another candidate A0 who has the same kind of claim to winning, in which case a tiebreaker may choose between A and A0). We call this principle Stability for Winners (with Tiebreaking). Stable Voting satisfies this principle while also having a remarkable ability to avoid tied outcomes in elections even with small numbers of voters. 1 Introduction Voting reform efforts in the United States have achieved significant recent successes in replacing Plurality Voting with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for major political elections, including the 2018 San Francisco Mayoral Election and the 2021 New York City Mayoral Election. It is striking, by contrast, that Condorcet voting methods are not currently used in any political elections.1 Condorcet methods use the same ranked ballots as IRV but replace the counting of first-place votes with head- to-head comparisons of candidates: do more voters prefer candidate A to candidate B or prefer B to A? If there is a candidate A who beats every other candidate in such a head-to-head majority comparison, this so-called Condorcet winner wins the election.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Winner Voting Method Comparison Chart
    Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart This chart compares the most widely discussed voting methods for electing a single winner (and thus does not deal with multi-seat or proportional representation methods). There are countless possible evaluation criteria. The Criteria at the top of the list are those we believe are most important to U.S. voters. Plurality Two- Instant Approval4 Range5 Condorcet Borda (FPTP)1 Round Runoff methods6 Count7 Runoff2 (IRV)3 resistance to low9 medium high11 medium12 medium high14 low15 spoilers8 10 13 later-no-harm yes17 yes18 yes19 no20 no21 no22 no23 criterion16 resistance to low25 high26 high27 low28 low29 high30 low31 strategic voting24 majority-favorite yes33 yes34 yes35 no36 no37 yes38 no39 criterion32 mutual-majority no41 no42 yes43 no44 no45 yes/no 46 no47 criterion40 prospects for high49 high50 high51 medium52 low53 low54 low55 U.S. adoption48 Condorcet-loser no57 yes58 yes59 no60 no61 yes/no 62 yes63 criterion56 Condorcet- no65 no66 no67 no68 no69 yes70 no71 winner criterion64 independence of no73 no74 yes75 yes/no 76 yes/no 77 yes/no 78 no79 clones criterion72 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 monotonicity yes no no yes yes yes/no yes criterion80 prepared by FairVote: The Center for voting and Democracy (April 2009). References Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks (1991). “Monotonicity in Electoral Systems”. American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (June): 531-537. Brewer, Albert P. (1993). “First- and Secon-Choice Votes in Alabama”. The Alabama Review, A Quarterly Review of Alabama History, Vol. ?? (April): ?? - ?? Burgin, Maggie (1931). The Direct Primary System in Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Redistricting: an Overview
    Congressional Redistricting: An Overview Royce Crocker Specialist in American National Government November 21, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42831 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Redistricting: An Overview Summary The decennial apportionment process determines the number of seats in the House of Representatives for which each state qualifies, based on population counts (for more on the apportionment process, see CRS Report R41357, The U.S. House of Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, by Royce Crocker). The redistricting process determines where those seats are geographically located within each state. Apportionment allocates the seats by state, while redistricting draws the maps. Redistricting is a state process governed by federal law. Much of this law is judicially imposed because, in 1929, Congress let lapse its standards requiring districts to be made up of “contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” If Congress chooses to legislate again in this area, its authority will come from Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, granting the authority to Congress to change state laws pertaining to congressional elections. The goal of redistricting is to draw boundaries around geographic areas such that each district results in “fair” representation. An effort to favor one group of interests over another by using the redistricting process to distort this fairness is often referred to as gerrymandering. Aside from distorting representation, it is believed by some that such gerrymandering diminishes electoral responsiveness by minimizing political competition among the parties. Many of the “rules” or criteria for drawing congressional boundaries are meant to enhance fairness and minimize the impact of gerrymandering.
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A
    Proportional-first-past-the-post: A Canadian model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador May 2014 ii Abstract For more than a decade a majority of Canadians have consistently supported the idea of proportional representation when asked, yet all attempts at electoral reform thus far have failed. Even though a majority of Canadians support proportional representation, a majority also report they are satisfied with the current electoral system (even indicating support for both in the same survey). The author seeks to reconcile these potentially conflicting desires by designing a uniquely Canadian electoral system that keeps the positive and familiar features of first-past-the- post while creating a proportional election result. The author touches on the theory of representative democracy and its relationship with proportional representation before delving into the mechanics of electoral systems. He surveys some of the major electoral system proposals and options for Canada before finally presenting his made-in-Canada solution that he believes stands a better chance at gaining approval from Canadians than past proposals. iii Acknowledgements First of foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my brilliant supervisor, Dr. Amanda Bittner, whose continuous guidance, support, and advice over the past few years has been invaluable. I am especially grateful to you for encouraging me to pursue my Master’s and write about my electoral system idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Reform in Canada: the Shape of Things to Come an Executive Summary March 2016
    Electoral Reform in Canada: The Shape of Things to Come An Executive Summary March 2016 We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first- past- the- post voting system. As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures—such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting—are fully and fairly studied and considered .... Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform. —Justin Trudeau, Real Change: A Fair and Open Government ABOUT THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Public Services Foundation of Canada and the National Union of Public and General Employees have prepared a comprehensive discussion paper based on a survey of the literature and polling and focus group results, which will be published at a later date. This executive summary provides an overview of the main points without the inclusion of the research, position paper, or polling results. Electoral Reform in Canada: The Shape of Things to Come Executive Summary The Canadian Debate Justin Trudeau promised during the election that this would be the last federal election to use the unfair first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Although he has indicated that other voting systems would be considered, Trudeau has indicated that his preferred proposal is a version of the single transferable vote (STV) that uses a ranked ballot. His critics say that when STV is used in single member ridings, it is really just an alternative vote (AV) system, also known as an instant run-off system, and the result would be even more unfair in its outcome than FPTP.
    [Show full text]
  • Approval Voting Under Dichotomous Preferences: a Catalogue of Characterizations
    Draft – June 25, 2021 Approval Voting under Dichotomous Preferences: A Catalogue of Characterizations Florian Brandl Dominik Peters University of Bonn Harvard University [email protected] [email protected] Approval voting allows every voter to cast a ballot of approved alternatives and chooses the alternatives with the largest number of approvals. Due to its simplicity and superior theoretical properties it is a serious contender for use in real-world elections. We support this claim by giving eight characterizations of approval voting. All our results involve the reinforcement axiom, which requires choices to be consistent across different electorates. In addition, we consider strategyproofness, consistency with majority opinions, consistency under cloning alternatives, and invariance under removing inferior alternatives. We prove our results by reducing them to a single base theorem, for which we give a simple and intuitive proof. 1 Introduction Around the world, when electing a leader or a representative, plurality is by far the most common voting system: each voter casts a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes is elected. In pioneering work, Brams and Fishburn (1983) proposed an alternative system: approval voting. Here, each voter may cast votes for an arbitrary number of candidates, and can thus choose whether to approve or disapprove of each candidate. The election is won by the candidate who is approved by the highest number of voters. Approval voting allows voters to be more expressive of their preferences, and it can avoid problems such as vote splitting, which are endemic to plurality voting. Together with its elegance and simplicity, this has made approval voting a favorite among voting theorists (Laslier, 2011), and has led to extensive research literature (Laslier and Sanver, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Reform “Regardless of Electoral System, There Will Always
    Electoral Reform “Regardless of electoral system, there will always be opposing views as to advantages and disadvantages of each” Submitted by SR-F 06 September 2016 Because elections and referenda require a high level of voter awareness and responsibility, civic participation in governance must be encouraged in order that Canada’s Democracy becomes one that protects liberties, particularly communal liberties, rather than simply emphasizing individual Rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMIbH5D0waA Direct Democracy would be the ideal voting system because it allows citizens to participate in most every aspect of governance through initiatives/voting/referenda... laws and changes to the national constitution being voted on by the citizenry affording them a much greater measure of control over political minutiae. Switzerland is the most prominent modern democracy to use elements of Direct Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland with versions of it at State and local levels in the USA. As opposed to direct democracy, some version of Representative Democracy , founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people (includes Referendum/Initiatives/Recall that provide limited Direct Democracy), would appear to be more practical for Canada at this point in time. Present System : FPTP - Plurality In “winner-take-all" electoral systems, generally just two parties end up competing in national elections, forcing political discussions into a narrow two-party frame where loyalty and party line assertions can distort political debate, voters left undecided as to where to place their vote. When FPTP Voters realise that their preferred candidate cannot win, knowing that their vote won’t count or will be wasted, they have little incentive to vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Verification for Functional and Relational Properties of Voting
    Automated Verification for Functional and Relational Properties of Voting Rules Bernhard Beckert, Thorsten Bormer, Michael Kirsten, Till Neuber, and Mattias Ulbrich Abstract In this paper, we formalise classes of axiomatic properties for voting rules, discuss their characteristics, and show how symmetry properties can be exploited in the verification of other properties. Following that, we describe how automated verification methods such as software bounded model checking and deductive verification can be used to verify implementations of voting rules. We present a case study, where we use and compare different approaches to verify that plurality voting satisfies the majority and the anonymity property. 1 Introduction Axiomatic definitions of characteristic properties for voting rules are important both for understanding existing voting rules and for designing new ones. For the trustworthiness of elections, it is also important to analyse the algorithmic descriptions of voting rules and to prove that they have the desired properties, i.e., they satisfy the declarative description. There are two classes of voting rule properties, namely (a) functional (absolute) properties, such as the majority criterion, which refer to single voting results, and (b) relational properties, such as anonymity, which are defined by comparing two (or more) results. In this paper, we first formally define these two classes of properties and discuss their characteristics (Section 2). We then show how symmetry properties { which are a particular kind of relational properties { can be exploited to more efficiently verify voting rules w.r.t. other (functional) properties (Section 3). Proving properties of voting rules by hand is tedious and error-prone { in particular, if the rules and properties evolve during design and various versions have to be verified.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranked-Choice Voting from a Partisan Perspective
    Ranked-Choice Voting From a Partisan Perspective Jack Santucci December 21, 2020 Revised December 22, 2020 Abstract Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has come to mean a range of electoral systems. Broadly, they can facilitate (a) majority winners in single-seat districts, (b) majority rule with minority representation in multi-seat districts, or (c) majority sweeps in multi-seat districts. Such systems can be combined with other rules that encourage/discourage slate voting. This paper describes five major versions used in U.S. public elections: Al- ternative Vote (AV), single transferable vote (STV), block-preferential voting (BPV), the bottoms-up system, and AV with numbered posts. It then considers each from the perspective of a `political operative.' Simple models of voting (one with two parties, another with three) draw attention to real-world strategic issues: effects on minority representation, importance of party cues, and reasons for the political operative to care about how voters rank choices. Unsurprisingly, different rules produce different outcomes with the same votes. Specific problems from the operative's perspective are: majority reversal, serving two masters, and undisciplined third-party voters (e.g., `pure' independents). Some of these stem from well-known phenomena, e.g., ballot exhaus- tion/ranking truncation and inter-coalition \vote leakage." The paper also alludes to vote-management tactics, i.e., rationing nominations and ensuring even distributions of first-choice votes. Illustrative examples come from American history and comparative politics. (209 words.) Keywords: Alternative Vote, ballot exhaustion, block-preferential voting, bottoms- up system, exhaustive-preferential system, instant runoff voting, ranked-choice voting, sequential ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, strategic coordination (10 keywords).
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdsourcing Applications of Voting Theory Daniel Hughart
    Crowdsourcing Applications of Voting Theory Daniel Hughart 5/17/2013 Most large scale marketing campaigns which involve consumer participation through voting makes use of plurality voting. In this work, it is questioned whether firms may have incentive to utilize alternative voting systems. Through an analysis of voting criteria, as well as a series of voting systems themselves, it is suggested that though there are no necessarily superior voting systems there are likely enough benefits to alternative systems to encourage their use over plurality voting. Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 6 Voting Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 10 Condorcet ................................................................................................................................. 11 Smith ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Condorcet Loser ........................................................................................................................ 15 Majority ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]